PURPOSE: We aimed to qualitatively and quantitatively compare the enhancement pattern of focal nodular hyperplasia after gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetate disodium injection in the same patient. METHODS: 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of 16 patients with 21 focal nodular hyperplasias studied after the injection of both contrast media were evaluated. Both MRI studies were performed in all patients. A qualitative analysis was performed evaluating each lesion in all phases. For quantitative analysis we calculated signal intensity ratio, lesion-to-liver contrast ratio and liver parenchyma signal intensity gain on hepatobiliary phase. Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon sign-rank test for clustered paired data and the McNemar test for paired frequencies. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: At qualitative analysis no statistically significant differences were evident during any of the contrast-enhanced phases. Signal intensity ratio (P = 0.048), lesion-to-liver contrast ratio (P = 0.032) and liver parenchyma signal intensity gain (P = 0.012) were significantly higher on hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetate disodium injection. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the MRI findings of focal nodular hyperplasia after the injection of a weight-based dose of either gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoxetate disodium.

Taibbi, A., Brancatelli, G., Matranga, D., Midiri, M., Lagalla, R., Bartolotta, T.V. (2019). Focal nodular hyperplasia: a weight-based, intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI. DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 25(2), 95-101 [10.5152/dir.2019.18165].

Focal nodular hyperplasia: a weight-based, intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI

Taibbi, Adele
;
Brancatelli, Giuseppe;Matranga, Domenica;Midiri, Massimo;Lagalla, Roberto;Bartolotta, Tommaso Vincenzo
2019-01-01

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aimed to qualitatively and quantitatively compare the enhancement pattern of focal nodular hyperplasia after gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetate disodium injection in the same patient. METHODS: 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations of 16 patients with 21 focal nodular hyperplasias studied after the injection of both contrast media were evaluated. Both MRI studies were performed in all patients. A qualitative analysis was performed evaluating each lesion in all phases. For quantitative analysis we calculated signal intensity ratio, lesion-to-liver contrast ratio and liver parenchyma signal intensity gain on hepatobiliary phase. Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon sign-rank test for clustered paired data and the McNemar test for paired frequencies. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: At qualitative analysis no statistically significant differences were evident during any of the contrast-enhanced phases. Signal intensity ratio (P = 0.048), lesion-to-liver contrast ratio (P = 0.032) and liver parenchyma signal intensity gain (P = 0.012) were significantly higher on hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetate disodium injection. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the MRI findings of focal nodular hyperplasia after the injection of a weight-based dose of either gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoxetate disodium.
2019
Taibbi, A., Brancatelli, G., Matranga, D., Midiri, M., Lagalla, R., Bartolotta, T.V. (2019). Focal nodular hyperplasia: a weight-based, intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI. DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 25(2), 95-101 [10.5152/dir.2019.18165].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
95-101.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 2.15 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.15 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10447/350703
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact